Georg Hempel1, Dirk Reinhardt, Ursula Creutzig, Joachim Boos. 1. Institut für Pharmazeutische und Medizinische Chemie, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Hittorfstrasse 58-62, 48149 Münster, Germany. hempege@uni-muenster.de
Abstract
AIMS: To investigate the population pharmacokinetics of daunorubicin in children after administration ofliposomal daunorubicin (Daunoxome). METHODS: Plasma samples from 19 children with relapsed acute myeloic leukaemia and five children with other malignancies were collected. Daunoxome was administered as a 1- to 2.5 h infusion with doses ranging from 30 to 60 mg m(-2). Overall, 214 samples were analysed for daunorubicin using capillary electrophoresis, and population pharmacokinetic modelling was performed using NONMEM. RESULTS: The data were best described by a one compartment model. Inclusion of interoccasion variability in the model (16.7% for clearance) improved strongly the precision of the estimates. The inclusion of body surface area or height as a covariate decreased interindividual variability. However, the best fit was obtained using the absolute dose, and when weight was included as a covariate for clearance (CL) and volume of distribution (V ). The final parameter estimates were: CL 6.41 ml h(-1) kg(-1) +/- 0.5 51% and V 65.4 ml kg(-1) +/- 0.5 27% (population mean +/- 0.5 interindividual variability). The area under the curve at a dose of 60 mg m(-2) was 231 mg l (-1)h. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with free daunorubicin, Daunoxome shows a low volume of distribution, a lower clearance and a lower interindividual variability in these parameters. This might be advantageous in reducing the variability in exposure to the drug.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: To investigate the population pharmacokinetics of daunorubicin in children after administration of liposomal daunorubicin (Daunoxome). METHODS: Plasma samples from 19 children with relapsed acute myeloic leukaemia and five children with other malignancies were collected. Daunoxome was administered as a 1- to 2.5 h infusion with doses ranging from 30 to 60 mg m(-2). Overall, 214 samples were analysed for daunorubicin using capillary electrophoresis, and population pharmacokinetic modelling was performed using NONMEM. RESULTS: The data were best described by a one compartment model. Inclusion of interoccasion variability in the model (16.7% for clearance) improved strongly the precision of the estimates. The inclusion of body surface area or height as a covariate decreased interindividual variability. However, the best fit was obtained using the absolute dose, and when weight was included as a covariate for clearance (CL) and volume of distribution (V ). The final parameter estimates were: CL 6.41 ml h(-1) kg(-1) +/- 0.5 51% and V 65.4 ml kg(-1) +/- 0.5 27% (population mean +/- 0.5 interindividual variability). The area under the curve at a dose of 60 mg m(-2) was 231 mg l (-1)h. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with free daunorubicin, Daunoxome shows a low volume of distribution, a lower clearance and a lower interindividual variability in these parameters. This might be advantageous in reducing the variability in exposure to the drug.
Authors: F Pea; D Russo; M Michieli; M Baraldo; A Ermacora; D Damiani; M Baccarani; M Furlanut Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2000 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: U Creutzig; J Ritter; M Zimmermann; D Reinhardt; J Hermann; F Berthold; G Henze; H Jürgens; H Kabisch; W Havers; A Reiter; U Kluba; F Niggli; H Gadner Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-05-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J Cortes; E Estey; S O'Brien; F Giles; Y Shen; C Koller; M Beran; D Thomas; M Keating; H Kantarjian Journal: Cancer Date: 2001-07-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: R Bellott; A Auvrignon; T Leblanc; Y Pérel; V Gandemer; Y Bertrand; F Méchinaud; P Bellenger; J Vernois; G Leverger; A Baruchel; J Robert Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2001 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: P S Gill; B M Espina; F Muggia; S Cabriales; A Tulpule; J A Esplin; H A Liebman; E Forssen; M E Ross; A M Levine Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1995-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Johan G C van Hasselt; Natasha K A van Eijkelenburg; Jos H Beijnen; Jan H M Schellens; Alwin D R Huitema Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Gudrun Würthwein; Charlotte Young; Claudia Lanvers-Kaminsky; Georg Hempel; Mirjam N Trame; Rainer Schwerdtfeger; Helmut Ostermann; Werner J Heinz; Oliver A Cornely; Hedwig Kolve; Joachim Boos; Gerda Silling; Andreas H Groll Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2011-11-14 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: S Lowis; I Lewis; A Elsworth; C Weston; F Doz; G Vassal; R Bellott; J Robert; F Pein; S Ablett; R Pinkerton; D Frappaz Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2006-08-01 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Ryan F Schell; Brian J Sidone; Whitney P Caron; Mark D Walsh; Taylor F White; Beth A Zamboni; Ramesh K Ramanathan; William C Zamboni Journal: Nanomedicine Date: 2013-07-24 Impact factor: 5.307
Authors: Keith T Schmidt; Alwin D R Huitema; Thomas P C Dorlo; Cody J Peer; Lisa M Cordes; Linda Sciuto; Susan Wroblewski; Yves Pommier; Ravi A Madan; Anish Thomas; William D Figg Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2020-09-08 Impact factor: 3.333